The Sun. — London, England, 1826-04-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. • HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY, Malts 27. • BILLS. Mr...Bnoc»ww and others brought up from the Commons the Irish risleriti Bill, the 8,000,00Q1. of Exchequer Bills Bill, and several private Bills, which were read a first time. MISCELLANEOUS. Lord IlroxsnaLl presented a Petition from Mr. William Jnnos, Marshal of the King's Bench, complaining of the crowded hate of that prisou.-- , Laid on the table. . Mr.-SWAN presented at the Bar, Certificates. from Medical Gentlemen at Perth, declaring that 'Mr. Patrick Murray, of Thriepland, wee totally incapable from. illness of coining to Lon don fur the present. ATTAINDERS REVERSED. The Earl of LIVERPOOL having moved the second reading of the Bill for reversing the attainder; of Earls Airlie and Cern wath, Barons Elcho and Duffus, and Sir Patrick Murray Thriep land of Fingask, The Earl of ROSEBERRY seized this opportunity of ex pressing his feelings on the subject. He considered the reversal of the attaindera of the two noble families of Airlie and Wemys, (Baron Elcho) as merely an act of justice, for the heads of those houses had Lommitted no crime whatever at the time when the attaiotlaswere 'issued against their heirs, who alone had been implicated. Notwithstanding the effect which the encreuse in the number of Scotch Peers might produce on his own election, he saw the restoration of noble families to their titles with sincere pleasure. The Earl of LIVERPOOL agreed with the Noble Earl, that the restoration of the houses of Airlie and Wemys was an act of pure justice. With respect to the two other cases, as well as those which had taken place i❑ former Sessions, they were acts of grace and mercy, and had been felt ita such by the House. Neither party considerations nor favour had been con sulted in selecting the individuals both in Scotland and Ireland, to whom the titles of their families had been rtsitored. Libera lity, Grace aa►d Justice, were the only feelings which had pre wailed with his Majesty. The Bills were then read a second time.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MISCELLANEOUS. Mr. ELLIS, of Dublin, presented a Petition from the Mayor, Sheriffs, and others of the City of Dublin for leave to bring in a 11111 to repeal the Act 40 George, commonly called the Metal Main Act.—Referred to the Committee. Mr. W, WHITMORE moved for a return of Ships and their tonnage (distinguishing Foreign from British), that had cleared out of the Port of London during the last ten years. Also for the quantity of all kinds of Grain (dktinguishing each kind), imported into Great Britain during the same period.—Ordered. LICENCED VICTUALLERS' ACT. Mr. ESTCOURT brought in a Bill to =time the present ticenced Victuallers' Act for oue year longer c at the end of which time he should have prepared one to supersede the present. Mr. MABERLY, Sen., wished that some provision might be made to *amble licenses to be granted to persons who, on account of illness or some sufficient cause on the part of the applicant for a license, came forward as substitutes for the victualler thus pre vented from attending on licensing, clay.. He understood that a Magistrate could not grant licenses under the present 'Art, to any person but the proprietor of the house for which such license was asked; He trusted that souse regulation would be made to enable the Secretary of State to grant an order for licenses to be given to substitutes provided always that a sufficient good excuse were Gd duced. _ _ . The Bill was read a first time, and ordered for a second reading on Tuesday, the 2d of May. CURRENCY. Mr. JOHN GRANT presented a petition from Dunse against any alteration in the Banking system of Scotland. The Hon. Member stated, that a petition to a contrary effect had' been pre sented to the House as cooling from Douse, the inhabitants of which town knew nothing of such a petition until they heard of its having been presented in Parliament. This petition was sign ed by nine- - tenths of the inhabitants of Dunse. Si; J. WROTTESLEY begged the House to recollect that there had been but one petition pmented which differed from the prayer of an immense number on the same subject; this petition, he begged leave to recal to the memory of the House, that this !petition came from Dunse.—(A laugh.)---Refi , rred to the Coln- Inittee. - • . , ELECTIVE RIGHTS OF FREEHOLDERS. -.Mr. SYKES brought in his Bill to declare the Rights of Free holders to Vote ut Elections of Knights of the Shire. The Bill 'CM read a first timeouid ordered for a. second read ing on Monday next, and iu the'interim to be printed. 'PROTECTING DUTY ON BRITISH:MERCHANT SHIPS. Mr. C. EwsoN presented a Petition from several Ship-owners of North Shields, praying for a Protecting Duty on British Mer chant. Ships. Mr..IHJSKISSON was much obliged to the Hon. Member far Newevatle, for his indication that he- was going to present. this Petition. A Similar Petition had been presented about A week ago, he had not been able to attend in the House ut the period of its presentation, because he was engaged in u Com mittee' up stairs till is very late hour of the afternoon, after which he had been obliged to attend to his duty as one of his Majesty's Ministers. He had, however, been informed, that his - Maumee had . heen, commented upon in very unmeasured terms. It was impossible in' many instances for Ministers to be always 10'1: heir places- in the House, when Petitions against Slavery and other subjects were presented, and especially, if they had no notice that such Petitions would lie presented: He also did' not think that the presentation of a Petition was a fit time to enter into a discussion on so important a subject as the Shipping and Navigation of Great Britain. He hopeed the Hon. Member for Newcastle would therefore excuse him in not proceeding any , 111W:1er at present, but he would give notice of his intention on Tuesday next to make a motion, which would bring the subject of the. present Petition before the House, and he trusted that h , 3 would ha able to show the House that these two subjects of *a much importance, weee not in so perilous a state as the Peti tion stated. He also hOped, that' Parliament would see these iutareats bad not been neglected. After nn observation from Sir M. W. Itintity, the Petition was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr: HUME. moved for a return of the number of bailable pro ceases issued by the Sheriffs of Middlesex and Surrey during the liat three years. Also for a' Return of the number of Attach iokSits fur contempt of Court, executes' by them during the same period. RATE OF POSTAGE IN IRELAND. .Mi. SPRING RICE inquiried if it was the intention of Go vernment to adopt any regulation upon this subject, and if **tin any definite time. He had intended to give notice of a motion upon the subject, but would be governed by the answer given to his questions. s. Mr. lIERRIES replier! that the subject was now under the consideration of CA' mutissioners of Enquiry, who were expected itoon.to make a Report. After the report had been received, Go vernment would introduce regulations with the view of removing ill cause of complaint. Mr. S. RICE expressed his satisfaction with this ans., r. SILK DUTIES' BILL. On the motion of Mr. C. GRANT, this Bill was committed, pro jhrnia, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Tuesday next. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. A Message from the Lordi announced their concurrence itt se veral Private 8i1L3.. _ . Mr. BERRIES presented a return of the Total Amount of the Unfunded ',/eltt of Great Britain and Ireland.—Laid on the table. REFORM OF PARLIANIENT. Lord J. RUSSELL rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention, of the House to the all-important subject of Parlia .mentary fiefortn. The circumstances of the country were now so nearly similar to those in, which he last addressed the House upOn this subject, that he might be satisfied to rest his case upon the arguments he bad formely adduced. He thought it his duty, however, rejecting all dethimation, again to lay before the House thtm plain and obvioue reasons, which, to his own mind, were conclusive upon the subject. The necessity of Government accommodating itself to the intellectual condition tho progressive intelligence bf the people was recognized even in those places where the tonit barbarous .and despotic in stitutions prevailed. Thus in Turkey a constittitioutd . w bilst he would, stoutly maintain the right of the Grand Seig nior to strike off with his own blind the heads of his subjects whenever he thought. proper, **ad at the same time insist noon the n ecessity of that Monarch appearing at Mosque every Friday , The Noble, Lord then proceeded to chew that a great in the general intelligence of the people advance had take n p lace dtiriAt the last century, and that the otercise of the elective frailChicli had' been narrowed, and consequently the influence of tha4)eonle upon Government had been Weakened during the se a Nriod. There existed, it was true, some portion of 'popular representation in that House, but it was con- Atatitly overpowered by the greater number of those who were either the nominees of powerful individuals, or who had found their way into Parliament by means, to use a short word, of bribery. During the growth of popular intelligence the state of the representation had been deteriorated to a degree which me naced some diy or other serious calamities to the State. The facts on which he ibunded'his opinions were not denied even by the Right Honourable Gentleman who had most strenuously opposed his proposition. The Noble Lord then referred to the manner in which Parliament was called together in the reign of Edward the Third, and inferred from this, and from the purposes for which only 04 were then assembled, of granting subsidies to the Crown, that the Members for boroughs and cities,. as well .as counties, must have represented large populous and flourishing communities. In support of his assertion, that in those days the burgesses, who exercised the Elective Franchise, were in fact the inhabitants at large, he should appeal to an authority which would not be disputed on the other side of the House. The Lord , Chancellor had stopped a Counsel in an argument before the Privy Council, to declare that he had no doubt, that original, ly all inhabitants were burgesses. The practice had prevailed of excusing places, on account of their poverty, from the ex pence of sending Members to Parliament, and it had been suggested to him that a Bill might be brought in upon the principle of the old practice to relieve certain Boroughs whose voters were reduced to a very small number from this bur den. He feared, however, that if he proposed such a measure he should be told by these voters that he was not acting in commiseration of their poverty, but that he was striving to take away from them their only chance of ever getting rich, by intercepting the shower of wealth with which they were now refreshed at least once in every six years., Our ancestors never dreamed of Such places as Old Sarum being represented. The object was to collect representatives who, acting for their con stituents, might grant subsidies to the Sovereign to afford to him the means of carrying on , his wars. This practice was produc tive of whatever was most valuable to our constitution. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the Parliaments of those days met, granted a subsidy, and separated in a fort night. This, however, was not all they did. They struggled for the liberties of their country, and the great principles of English liberty were effectually urged and firmly established by them. He would borrow the equally solid annd acute remark of a celebrated author, that when we talked of the liberties purchased by the blood , of our ancestors, we should be nearer the truth if we described them as the liberties purchased by the moneyof our ancestors. All he contended for was, that they ehould return to the wholesome and original principles of the Constitution. He would now advert to some of the objections with which he had been met on the fernier occasion. And the first of these had been the prosperous state of the country. At the present moment he might, if he chose, retort their own argument upon his opponents. • He, however, would not do so, for he thought all such arguments inapplicable to the subject.— There would, of necessity, be vicissitudes in the condition of such a country as this, and he did not believe the general pros perity of the country to have arisen from any thing which had been done within the last thirty or forty years. If he wished to explore the deep and solid foundations of our national greatness, he must go back four or five hundred years. He would not reproach Parliament with the Act of 1822, which they had this Session found it so necessary to repeal, because he did not be lieve that by any means a body of men could be brought toge ther, who would have the ability to 'protect the country from occasional commercial revulsions. The elective franchise was a trust placed in certain bodies for the good of the community.— He should contend upon the principle that no injury would be sustained by such bodies if they were for the general good to be deprived of this trust. Yet although lie maintained this principle, he did not deny that in fact the exercise of the elective franchise had become a privilege, and lie should therefore nut be disposed to resist a fair and proper compensation. In all cases private rights were held to be subservient to the public Food. The Noble Lord here instanced the numerous instances in which the House legislated up& the principle that private rights were to be sacrificed for the sake of public accommodation and advantage. Was the proprietor of a borough entitled to greater tenderness, delicacy, or forbearance, than a poor trades man in the Strand, whose house was to be pulled down with or without his consent, for the sake of widening a thoroughfare? If the most sacred rights of property might be thus dealt with, why should not the same principle be extended to property in boroughs? His object was to ob tain a Government under proper controul, and he trusted he should not be met, as' on former occasions, with the dread of democratic violence, and the horrors of the French Revo lution. This he considered would be bad declamation, and quite as inapplicable as if in a question relating to the pri vilege of the British Peerage, an argument should be drawn from the conduct of the tyrannical aristocracy of Venice, or se if in a question upon the prerogatives of the British crown, a tirade should be introduced against arbitrary and despotic sway. Such arguments would have as littl to do with those question, as the dangers of democracy had to do with the present. The Right Hon. Gentleman had often add; that after all the constitu tion works well. If he could be convinced of that, whatever dif _ _ ficulty he might have in reconciling it to abstract principle, he for one should not be anxious for chan fe. But he was convinced that it did not work well, and that it worked so ill as to threaten the overthrow of the Constitution. He was not going to advert to the Bullion question, or to any Other upon which Parliament had fallen into error. This was not the test which he was de sirous of applying to it. The decision of any questions of policy excepting such as were between the people and the Crown, might be as safely entrusted to the Privy Council or any other body as to that House. But the true test was, the conduct of that House upon questions between the p,ople and Crown. He found the tllouse perpetually uffirming or denying propositions, not in unison, but in hostility to the opinions of the people; and he in ferred from this fact, that the House did not adequately represent the people. This Was the same argument which had been employed by Mr. Fox at the end of the American war, and upon. this he was content to rest his case in favour of Parliamentary Reform. These were the considerations which impressed upon-his mind the duty, even at this late period of the present Parliament, of urging this sub ject upon the House. They all knew the strong disposition mani fested by the people some tune ago upon this subject, and they also knew the strong coercive measures adopted to repress that dispo sition. If the same cause of coercion had continued, it would, he apprehended, have led to violent convulsions and calamities. His Majesty's Ministers had, however, Materially changed their course, and had in fact at last adopted many recommendations which had repeatedly been urged in vain from that side of the House. He would read the solutions submitted to the House in March 1817, by his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member. for Winchelsea.—(The Noble Lord here read a string of Resolutions in favour of unrestricted commerce,)—The Or der of the Day was moved and the House voted for it, and thus negatived the Resolutions by a very great majority. Yet these very Resolutions contained. the substance of half the measures in which they had been engaged during the last two or three Sessions. lint although the present Ministers had changed the policy of the Government, he very' much doubted whether they would be able to carry that policy into full effect with a House of Commons constituted as the present House was. He admitted that many of their measures had been highly useful to the coun try, but yet not so useful as to convince him that the existing system of sending Members to thst House ought to be preserved. He expected that in the next Parliament, if chosen in the same manner as this had been, they should find those who were sent there, not by the people, but by interests totally different from those of the people,, preventing the consummatfon of the .polity which the Ministers had begun to adopt. He thought-the great borough proprietors, would place the Ministers in that dilemma; and no course could therefore be so advantageous to them, as to meet in the next Parliament the Representatives of the People only, from whom, it they persevered in measures of public be nefit, they would receive that overpowering support which no thing could resist ; but which he was not so sure they would re ceive, if they now refusad to give to the people their justlshare in the, representation of the country. Having stated the rea sons why it appeared to him that a Reform in Parliament was necessary, before he sat down, he should briefly explain his in tentions in following up this molution, if it met the support of the House. The measure he should propose would not differ from that which he had proposed on two former occasions. He should propose to take a hundred of the smallest boroughs, and let them send one Member each to Parliament instead of two.— The number so taken from them to be returned by the Countiei, and by unrepresented towns which had grown up into importance. It would be for the House to deal with this plan as it pleased, or to substitute any other; but that was the course which he Should recommend. Two methods of reform had been proposed upon various occasions. The one was to remodel the construction of the House altogether—the other, a partial reform by which they should be infusing new vigour into the Constitution. He preferred the latter. It was suggested by Lord Chatham, adopted by Mr. Pitt, and always supported by Mr. Fox. After quoting a passage from a speech in, which Mr. Fox supported the principle of partial reform, the NOble Lord concluded by moving, "that the present state of the representation of the people in Parliament, require* the most serious consideration of this House."—(Hear, hear, hear.) Lord ALTHORPE seconded the motion. After the admirable speech of his Noble Friend, so full of good sense and argument, and so free from declamation, he should not trouble the House erther than to say, that in the present state of the representa tion the people had not that due preponderance which secured to them the certainty of good government. He did not mean to say that the people had not good government under the present Ministers, because it was in the power of the most absolute Go vernment to govern well if they chose.—(Hear, hear.)—But he contended that the people bad a right to be secured by , the na ture of their representation from the possibility of being governed otherwise. • Mr. S. E. DENISON said, that all • the claim he had upon the indulgence of the House was that he came t into the debate for the first time. Neither had the Noble Lord, as it appeared to him, placed the subject in any new light, nor taken any new ground in defence of his proposition, which had not before been triumphantly refuted. The Noble Lord hail argued the .question upon its general merits, and " upon its general merits he should attempt to reply. The Noble Lord had—pointing to the Right .Hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and others of his Majesty's Ministers—stated as a reason why they ought to proceed to a reform in Parliament, that they, had already entered Upon the reform of abuses in various department of the Government. Now he thought that argument ought not to be confined to Ministers, but applied with equal force to those almost unani mous decisions of- the House which confirmed and gave autho rity to such propositions. But because his Majesty's Ministers found abuses and reformed them in their departments, was it ne cessary that they shoUld lend themselves to every sweeping plan of reform that might be proposed? 'On the contrary, was that not rather an argument proving that they would not lend them selves to abuse where they found it to exist. Helhought it would be but fair to think that they resisted the present question upon prin ciple ; and in doing so, he thought them fully entitle'd to the confi dence of the House.—(Cheers.)—Under the peculiar situation of the country during this Session, the House had thought fit to lay aside many important questions which might otherwise have claimed their deliberation ; but he could conceive no topic which might so well have been suffered to sleep as the topieof reform, during the ex cited feelings of the people of England, under their present sufferings. Was there anything in the conduct of the existing Psrliament worse than, that of its predecessors, which called for immediate redress? He had the authority of the. Hon. Baronet, the Member for West minster, in favour . of . one side .of the House at. least. The Ho nourable Baronet declared in, his speech on a former night, that in all his long experience of Parliament he had never sat with so ho nourable an Opposition as that which now surrounded him.— He believed that he might apply the same eulogiutn with equal truth to the side of the House on which he was sitting. Had the present Parliament been insensible to the influence of the Crown, and had they allowed it to steal upon them without resistance ? If such an assertion were made to him, he should appeal to the vote of the other night, when a propo sition was defeated upon that , ground, and which appeared to him not to merit the suspicion it encountered. But to proceed more directly to the immediate question before the House, the Noble Lord had taken care to disclaim all connection or community of feeling with the party who espoused and advo cated doctrines of violent reform. Put the Noble Lord would excuse him if—giving him fill credit for the sincerity of his in tentions--he could not rely with confidence upon his being able to preserve the distinction which he drew between the two reforming doctrines. Nothing which the Noble Lord could do would make that party believe, if his proposition were carried, that it was not one step towards a reform upon principle ; and a reform upon principle must of necessity approach to a uniformity of representation. They had two living examples in which flys terns with a uniformity of representation existed, and to these he would call the attention of the House very shortly. In France the elective franchise wasfoundecl exclusively upon property, and the representative principle was therefore uniform. To regulate the number of voters, a high average of property was necessary, and the consequence was, that the interests of the lower classes, so beneficially and usefully represented in that House, were com pletely excluded. In order to reform upon this system, they must proceed to disfranchise a large body of the present electors of the kingdom ; and he believed they knew too well the man ner in which it worked in France to wish for such a change. The next principle of reform was that which would place the ie presentation upon a more popular basis, approaching it nearer to the uniformity of a representative democracy. An example of this system was presented by the United States of North 1 America. In what he should say respecting the constitution of that country, he wished to guard himself against the miscon struction of meaning any thing invidious or disrespectful. It did not follow that what was bad here must be so there. Here, what we had of liberty had been wrestled from absolute power.— There, what they possessed of controul had been built up as a check upon general licentiousness. The Hon. Member then described the nature of the American Constitution, and con tended that no argument, as refCrable to this country, could be deduced from that. Tbo Members assembled at Washington rather as the agents of local States than as councillors direct ing the complicated affairs of a great nation. Almost all their different States had different interests, 'and each man was there as an Ambassador,: to grant nothing to one legal interest for which he did not gain an equivalent in favour of his own. We, fortunately, had no such distinctions here; the interests of the whole community were bound up together, and it was the duty of the Members of that House to look only at the general welfare of the country. If any argument drawn from the repre sentative system of Arfierica could be carried to this country, it must rather be taken :from the Constitution of a single State, than from that of the Union. Whether the Constitution of any one of those States would be capable of working those complicated affairs of a great country this, he would not stop to inquire; but certain he was that such an experi ment had never been tried. He feared he was fatiguing the House.—(Loud Cheers.)—He had shewn that no reform could be effected, with satisaetion to the great majority of Reformers, but a reform upon principle ; and he knew of no representative principle but the two of which he had been speaking. .He, • then, was 'not prepared to change this—imperfect if 'they liked —impure if they hked—but this efficient system by which they were assembled that day. In the mixed character of our Constitution, we had the principle of the French system of property, controlled by .a Sufficient infusion of the American principle of democracy. That House, partaking of both those systems, and therefore peculiarly apapted to the wealth and the freedom of the country, gave introduction to all parties and all principles, and admitted the expression of every opinion that could be useful in the councils of the nation. He believed that to the admirable balance of the aristocracy and democracy in that House, the country owed much of its honours, much of its safety, ' and much of that distinction, for which it was admired and en vied abroad. It was owing to that admiruble balance that no one Parliament deviated much from the. Parliament on which its pre ' decessors trod ; it was owing to that admirable balance that, not ' withstanding the changes which took • place in the individual ' members which composed them, they even all preserved the same tenor of politics, the same moderation of purpose, the same con ' sistency of design--- cc enim plus septima ducitur uxor " At genus immortale menet multosque per annos " Stat fortuna donna et nvi numerantur avorum." . . It was this perpetuity of principle that he wished to preserve. He ' was not blind to the incongruities of the system ; but he feared lest in attempting to remove those parts which appeared defective he might destroy the whole. He could see the inconsistencies which the Noble Lord bad pointed out ; but although the fabric of our Constitution, might not be formed upon the principles of Grecian uniformity, but 'rather partook the character of its own proper Gothic, he roues .et stand in awe and „admiration of its grandeur, for he dared not approach it with the hand of specious reform.—(Much cheering.) Mr. ROSS opposed the motion. Although the Resolution, proposed by the Noble Lord was of so limited a nature, he hoped the House would meet the question upon principle, and dispose of ,it at once. The Noble Lord called for Reform upon the ground of the increased power and intelligence of the people, while others, with whom the Noble Lord generally agreed, asked for it as a check to the increased influence of the Crown and the Aristocracy. The Honourable Member went into several historical statements, to chew that the influence of the Crown in regard to the state of the House had been greatly diminished, and that the influence of the people had increased. Did the Noble Lord reckon as nothing the influence of public opinion, which had grown up in consequence of the manner in which their proceedings were communicated to the world. Not a word could he spoken, but in an incredibly short space of time it was published in the remotest corners of the Empire. He contended that there had been, and could be no in crease of the number of close boroughs, and that the House ought not to be the mere echo of the temporary wishes and feelings of the people. Ile quoted Mr. Burke's speech in the year 1784, in which' that great Statesman denied that a Member of Parliament ought to be sent there to vote against the honest con viction of his own judgment and conscience. The rights of these hundred Boroughs would only be a prelude to the destruction of the whole, and ultimately of the Constitution. However much the Noble Lord might wish to do so, he would not be able to re sist the progress of destruction when it had once commenced. Lord GLENORCHY approached this question with consider able doubt, but looking to the case of the City of Edinburgh, he was convinc e d th at no s p e cific cause of at: Ise would be remedied without a g enera l measure of Reform. The whole defence of the present system was , that the good made up for the bad. This appeared to him as absurd as ifs man who kept the company of thieves and villains was advised to remain there because he had not actually found their hands in his own pockets. That Mem bers of the other House should have the power of sending 8, or 10. or 12 to that, was an insupportable grievance, and one which struck at the very vitals of the Constitution. Mr. HOBHOUSE thought the Noble Lord entitled to great praise for the moderation which he observed in dealing with the subject before the House. He had told them, that when people were. in the company of thieves and villains, they were not bound lo defer their complaints till they felt strange hands in their pockets. The expression was rather hard to be sure, but yet as an illustration it was just, and he (Mr. Hobhouse) would go further and say that the English people had actually found the hands in their pockets. He had frequently spoken on this sub ject, and though his exertions had not availed to effect the ob ject for which they were designed, he was yet bound, in the language or the old Scotch Reformers, to " testify." The Honourable Member for Newcastle-under-Line saw the pheno mena of the times quite differently from him, and used language much like to that which Ovid put into the mouth of a Papal Deity— Nitor in adversum ; nee me, qui caetera, vincit Impetus; et rapido contrarius evehor orbi. The Honourable Gentleman went against the current of opinion, which swayed most of the Members of the House, and which he doubted not would eventually 'bear him down. To the talents and high attainments of the Honourable Gentleman he bore unequivocal testimony. " liinam noster esset,"—said he— Would that he were on our side, and that we had the ad ' vantage of his powerful assistance. The Honourable Gen tleman seemed to think that there was something new in the Institutions of America, and this was .the. conclusion with which he (Mr. Hobbouse) quarrelled. It should not be forgotten that the Americans had learned to be what they were from the free spirit of our Constitution winch they inhe rited. It was not in America that they learned democratic principles of Government : they only fought over again the battles which our ancestors fought at the period .of the Re volution, as well as at many former periods.. Our Penns, cur Hariapdens, and our Seldens, were those out of whose book the Americans took a leaf to inform them, that there was no security for good ,government but ,in a fair representative system. The Hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Line had said that there were only two modes of Reform to pursue ; the first of which was the French system of property, and the second, the American plan of democratic representation. Now as to the first it was not the fact that in France property was the basis of repre sentation. It was indeed its apparent basis, as it was here also ; but in France the returning officers, if he might so name them, were really under the controul of Government. The elections there were the point to which Government directed its particular attention, and for the purpose of crushing the aspirations of the people after liberty—to use a metaphor which he had employed before—he took a leaf from England's book. The system of oppression in France did not arise from Aristocracy, it succeeded only because there was no Aristocracy to oppose its progrms.— To cut the Aristocracy of a country into shreds, was never advantageous to, the cause of freedom, as was evident in the case of France. There the grossest bribery prevailed, nut indeed in so complete a way as here, because we had not lived so long for nothing, but had availed ourselves of the docrities of our Walpoles and Pelhants of former days. We did not, it was true, break down bridges or stop fences to prevent electors from pass ing, fur we knew how to manage matters better and more speci ously without having recourse to those overt acts. The Hon. Gentlemen also asked whether the House was less pure or more corrupt now than at any former time. He really did not know how it could be more corrupt : the Ministers were al ways sure of • having a majority, and what more did they want ? It was adduced by the Honourable Gentleman in proof of the purity of the House, that the salary lately proposed for the President of the Board of Trade had been withheld. In this he chewed that he agreed in the public opinion which prevailed on that subject ; but he gave a pretty character to the majority, who voted upon that question. That very vote he would challenge as a complete instance of corruption. Of eighty-seven Members, who voted with Ministers, thirty-eight bad salaries under Go vernment, ten more were connected with the former by ties of blood, and there was only one County Member in the whole ma jority. It might be a reason why the County Members had not lent their aid that this was the last Session of the present Parliament ; but if another Session remained, the case might have been very different. A Parliament during its last Session, frequently resembled a repentant sinner on a death-heel, who, as Swift said, after a life spent in iniquity was willing to sacri fice to God the leavings of the devil. Before they departed this Parliamentary life, they generally desired to shew some signs of grace, and after voting against the people throughout the early part of their career, they thought it adviseable to vote for them towards the close, previous to their dissolution. It was urged by the Honourable Member for Newcastle-under-Line, that if they did not adopt either the American or the French plan of Reform, there was no other plan for theni to adopt. But he could assure the Hon. Gentleman, that such was net the case: they had a plan of their own, independently of either of those named. Nay, there were many plans :—the Hon. Member for Durham could propose one ; he could himself propose another ; and many Hon. Members had each his particular plan to suggest.— That the House should come to the vote now in contemplation was a considerable step in the matter : it was getting the fine end of the wedge into the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and when so much was effected, he hoped the whole would be driven through. (Hear, hear.)—He avowed that it was Lis object to bring about an efficient reform.' If thit cheer were meant to intimate that the refintners of the present (lay raeant more than they said, or that they aimed at revolution, he would tell them that the re formers had more to lose by revolution than many of those, who were opposed to them. They ought to do the Reformers of England the credit to admit that they were perfectly sin cere in the expression of their views. No one should be allowed to believe that England never had a proper representa tion. According to the statement of the Honourable Member for Orford, the non-electors of this kingdom in the mass were pos sessed of no property whatsoever, and were quite undeserving of consideration. This was a proposition so exceedingly odd and absurd, thaf it wrs a pity they (the Opposition) could not see the smile which must have played on the countenances of the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite, while they were thus instructed. In fact it was the great objection, that while the opulent menu facturiug interests of the ,country—while such towns as Man chester and Birmingham were left unrepresented, such places: as Orford, which had the honour of returning the Hon. Member, should have such an advantage over the former. Those in gene ral who had the right to vote were the most ragged portion of society, who would most properly be consigned to a poor-house. They were inevitably led to commit perjury, as giving their vote under the influence of others, and not with regard to the interests of their country. In his views of the people's right to a fair re presentation he was borne out by the presumption of the Act of Parliament, which made it necessary for a placeman to go back to his constituents to know whether they approved of him as their represen tative under the change of his circumstances. The Right Hon. Gen tleman, who had once represented Liverpool, did not go back there to seek the consent of his constituents, but to one of those conve nient places that would send in King Log if they were ordered. Was it not a powerful fact in support of his case, that the Right Hon. Gentleman deemed it inconsistent with his duty to represent Liverpool? Another proof of the necessity of reform would be found in the multitude of statutes against bribery at elections. Did not those statutes imply the necessity of representation, and were they not notoriously broken? Mr. Burke, who said every thing about every thing, declared, that for all proper purposes the House of Commons was not a House of Commons. So said he. Let them say if they would, that the system was a good one, and worked well ; but let them not hold out that it was a fair re presentation. The Hon. Member for Montrose said, the other night, that if the Opposition would but do their thity, God knows what wonders might be achieved. Now this was delusive language fur if the Opposition tried their strength, and mustered every night, so would Ministers. The only result would be, that while one party had a great minority, the other party would have a great majority. Such was the case in the time of Mr. Fox and Mr. Pit. Such was the case when the Hon. Member for Montrose brought on his motions in 1821 and 1822. Influence was inva riably decisive many Gentlemen came down on purpose to vote with Ministers, and must do so from motives of honour end the esprit de corps, until the King would please to turn his favours into another channel. It was the best way for the Opposition to own the power of Ministers and bow before it. He su pp orted them from a to do wrong if they p leased. When a bill was introduced to ex elude Mr. Tooke from Parliam ent he ex p ressed hi mself obliged to powergra grateful sense of their frequently doing right when it was in their Ministers for not ordering him to be hanged on the lobby of the House, being fully assured that they had it quite within their power to do so. It was therefore that he (Mr. II.) was grateful for the smallest donations they were pleased to bestow.—(A laugh.)—The pre sent wail a good time for the discussion of the question. For in 1824 the Chancellor of the Exchequer attributed the prospe rity of the country to the much calumniated Parliament, and if distress now prevailed he thought that some blame ought to attach to Parliament. Now was the time to inquire whether t y w ear ell. lBl T 9 o , w th h e en fin: i n r. cial v o p s ar i t t tor o f t it he i he systemchiefly ,Nowolebtjeewusworhkea. have T q ai u ll i r te ethal s e o sinking fund," Parliament was never aware that the old sinking fund was a sham. Ire next objected to the dead weight for which a Bill was introduced April 29, 1822. Only 54 persons in the whole House had been able to see the ab surdity of that scheme—and it had been carried by triumphant majorities—which was so wild, that even the Right Honourable Secretary for Foreign Affairs was reduced to confess " that he did not understand it."--(Hear, hear !)—And this was the finals= cial wisdom of Parliament ! the truth was, the " wisdom of Par liament," was ever the folly of the Minister of the day.—(Hear, hear !)—lt signified nothing who was the Minister—not a point ; except, indeed, that out of the peculiar, impartial, and generous feeling of the House, it did appear that they rather preferred a Minister who was pre-eminently stupid and absurd.—(Laughter.) —Of the majorities of that House, he might say as the poet said of the inhabitants of Jerusalem— " Of whatsoe'er descent their god-head be, . . • " Stock, stone, or other homely pedigree, " In his defence his servants are as bold " As if he had been born of beaten gold." (Hear, and laughter.)—The Hon. Member then went on to ana lyze the ingredients of which the majorities of the House were habitually composed, and insisted upon the host of placemen who voted tooth and nail with Ministers on all occasions. The officers , of the army and navy he did not place precisely in the same poli tical rank ; but at the same time, no one could deny that it was difficult for gentlemen in those professions to oppose the ' • Government on particular occasions. Of the majority who - lately voted with Ministers for the disposal of 183,5722 of the public money, 89 were placemen, and 59 were oflioers in the army or navy. The same 89 chiefly aided in the' four teen majorities which Ministers had in the years 1821 and 1822, In 36 questions which occurred in those years, 25 County Mem bers voted with Ministers and 37 against them-13 Welch Mem bers voted for them, and nine against the. Of the Members for 89 Cities and Boroughs where an elective Body existed, 57 were on the side of Ministers, and 107 against them. But of the Mem bers nominated by individuals, 151 supported Ministers, and only 12 voted against them—five voted occasionally on different sides, and 28 not at all. In vain did the Right Hon. Gentleman on the opposite side say that he would scorn a venal majority. He would be stripped of his power if he were deprived of his patronage and eornpelledto charm them by the natural graces of truth and wis dom. On the 3d of June, 1822, when the Right Hon. Gentle man introduced the Corn Importation Bill, with what was termed a grinding clause for the landed interest, thOlatter resisted the sure through their most sonorous organ,theHon.Member for Sower setshire. On the first reading there were 149 Ayes, and 41Noes. But on the 10th of the same month, when the Marquis of Londonderry as Chancellor of the Exchequer, said thht he had altered his m i n d on the subject, and advised the Hon. Secretary not to put the clause, and when the latter persisted in pressing the measure, being determined to try his strength, he had only 21 Members to support him, and 116 opposed the clause. Such was then his. fate, and such would it be now if the thunders of his eloquence were heard on the ill-omened left. He had a right to say that the cause of reform was advancing, wheri he considered the refocus which had already been introduced by the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department, in the Jury Laws and the Criminal Code, and also the alterations in the Laws of Trade, brought in by a Right Hon. Member of the Cabinet of the King. He augured well for reform, when he recollected that the Right Hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs had broken the connection with foreign despot* which had been so disgraceful to this country.—(Cheers.) Lord L. GOWER reviewed at considerable length the argu ments which had been used in favour of an imrnedate reform in the Legislature, and contended that the fact had not been esta blished by any of , them that society was not fairly represented under the present system. He had again heard the assertion an often made by certain persons of late, that the representa tion was not correspondent with, or proportionate to the im proved state of that society which it represented, as if there was still a body of intelligent individuals, or rather a mass of intelligence itself; wandering about the country uurepresented ,- • This he felt convinced, as far as he knew any thing of societis • was altogether unfounded. With respect to the asserted lofity" ence and controul exercised by the Public Press in this day over the public and that House, he was not blind to its effects he must confess that public men, and particularly the represen tatives of the people within whose walls were all within its m po i w nd erful ed him of the ft its zenith of power by the historian Gibbon, when he said that such was its power, such the extent of its influenc e, throughout description a pt gr ion ea and potent engine, which re minded ti w y o re rld m , ote tha to t p n r o ov co e a un s t2 2c • tt w ia as gi ry v s e uffi to n o c t f h ie ose th ntl e y w n po h o o ma w i tr d ru E t i h ion e rP h isr a te l p- .. e h np t , - nu od rustn to itnd b ree r ed a fo v rm e ha its ivne ho ane sti losedd lity nn o th r isn ex f eycidfris:,,aresntoenuityrnentot.e—ou(viicetaior; i be were rot fully aware how much it bad done in effecting an im vineeil t t il h a e u ml e ost: to a rn po rn ey i w:er . G h ;: c i m l h e a r w n a i l a- l ' f co o nvincin ieCeS of That in matters of this descr?prtiiofnhtle iewepreen ovitatiyet.n..7.tnit; in in his memory it as - more et ective and potent weapon than the s word. 1 1 ere il ' i v t l' at r Ireland pazsage in a speech which he hall had the pleas ure t° ' ew : one of t bad ever had the good fortune to hea g r. P He alluded to the spee tition of th e Roman Catholics, who prayed for Eusancirtior!. lit that speech it was said " that time was au innovator. Th us _ e was time hail imperceptibly encroached upon the constitutiou. England ; but the changes which it wrought had only frier render the structure more venerable, and had taken nothing its beauties. The lines written by Dryden on a picture of the cs: lebrated Sir Godfrey Kneller might with equal propriety be 4r plied to the constitution of England " What mortal art can do is here exprest ; oratory tba " Mellow your shadows and your colours blond, , " And give the picture all that art can lend ; " But Time, with friendly hagnidvi,"hgashidslePi support rest.o the me " Time only lends new beauties to decay, " And adds more graces than it takes away." The Noble I ord concluded by repeating his conviction that the present was not the time for the introduction of this measure. Mr. R. MARTIN thought that the eve of a general election.-- an occasion when no man could say when he left that House at the conclusion of the session whether he should ever enter it more (hear, and laughter)—was no time for the agitation of this gust' t i t)a . F or himself, he should only say, whether be ritUrped t° Parliament or not,---and he could not answer for his return , as 6 corrupt opposition, headed by one who was indebted to him for his seat in that House, had been batched against him—whether I's was again returned to sit in Parliament, or whether he wss to de prived of that honour, he should never attribute his ( I,o ' Parliamentary PALMER,o i corruption. The he ll t o h n e . n G ot e ice ntl w em hi an ch shadpokbeee: tepee length against the motion. General of him by the Hon. Member for Orford, and other observatr lately made upon the representation of the city of Bath, sirous of saying a few words on the part of his constituents himself. As a friend to reform, although the reprieentatiss,°oo, close borough, he had stood in the same predicament as the Member for Caine, in his late attempt to amend the relts e . tation of the City of Edinburgh; but whatever thought of his conduct, he had voted with a mincers ,71, 0 to carry the question, and as he had done by Edinbuvri,.. would have done by Bath, had her case been brought ~ ward. How far in this he had consulted the feelings of l e stituents, would be soon for them to determine ; but eee° sl ci oe ing the personal attack lately made upon them, be IX 'yert take the liberty of observing that tbe city of Bath had of the only example of a close borough, alike independent °`try; Crown, the administration, and the aristocracy of th e c o Members, u t : ha d and of which, as one of its embers, he could dean? , '! o at not a single vote at his command, but was indebted for los tot solely to the free will of the electors. It was true, pelli s e h , sne gir the greater remb P el r s t mbeiglohntgedthrothugthhephmysiedcicatioPtrhereiroip7 ; he bu l t° 7r,i Aw i A is t least they would give his constituents credit for their eoto: ore not availing themselves of their unconstitutional power t mote their private interests. Mr. WILLIAM LAMB said, that after considering th e t i ll; meats advanced in support of the measure prop osed b y the ,(1.;,0 L rd, he was obliged from conviction to vote against it' A t he great objection which he had to the measure altogether, eybe great ground on which he rested his opposition to it was, tb 3 h it t could not see, nor had any person pointed out clearly to Min' w ho a real benefit could be derived from it. The Noble igeve r „ fo hie stated, that he was not favourable to a democracy.....the bet Seconder had echoed the same opinion—and the Hon. 311,0 for Westminster had declared that ,he wished f or nothiPf..r. could tend to revolution. Now, he would only sa y , in alls L —e got this, that individuals did not always w ant what they got, _7o)hat, what they wanted.—(llear.)—The question here was, t hey gentlemen were seeking ; but supposing they g ot that whir.' c°t o. sought, what an effect such an event would hav e on the ~t t o ele ti tion? And his opinion was, that the alteration which Wes would trench extremely on the monarchical portion of the Cn t h e tution.—(Hear, hear.)—He would not stop to argue i lillettha influence of the democracy was too, great or too littiO in 7. lot ed lance of the constitution. This, however, he would decisively declare ; that, while he would do nothing to it, he certainly would do nothing that could have Ow tentien"o.. increase it.--(Heat;.)---In his opinion all the advantage° peered to be on the part of the people. Ttie pro,..ofl`; I rally in their favour, and most of 'the spet:ebm , a delivered this evening were, Perlialis; !Taco filed to